X-Rite ColorMunki vs ICC

I've got a new Epson R3000, for which Ilford, Hahnemuhle and Innova will soon have ICC codes for their various papers.

Are these enough to produce accurate renditions of my Spyder 3 Pro-calibrated monitor colors, or is the ColorMunki better at accuracy?

It's an expensive gadget which I would get only if the ICC codes don't do the job.

I'm asking because I found that with my Canon ip5200 Pixma, the ICC codes for various papers were fine at reproducing the monitor image.

tvphotog wrote in post #12170374
Are these enough to produce accurate renditions of my Spyder 3 Pro-calibrated monitor colors, or is the ColorMunki better at accuracy?

First of all, take your monitor out the equation. It has absolutely no affect on the quality of prints. If you print a standardized printer test image on Epson paper, using a canned Epson profile, it will print the same whether your monitor is calibrated or not.

Epson profiles are reputed to be excellent and you may or may not find a difference between a paper manufacturer supplied profile and one created by the ColorMunki.

I'd suggest holding off on investing in a ColorMunki until you do some printing. But always judge from a print of a standard test image, not one of your own.

Chas,

I have found that for my calibrated monitor, using a Kodak ICC code for their paper on my Canon printer, I was able to reproduce the colors on my monitor exactly. I understand that the printer will print the same each and every time, regardless of whether my monitor is calibrated or not.

I will wait and see how the new ICC codes from each paper company work on each of their papers, using my new Epson printer. I assume that they should reproduce what I see on my calibrated monitor. I'll hold off on the ColorMunki til then.

Thanks.

Whether the colors will be exactly the same is debatable. If the monitor has a wider color gamut than the printer as does the image, then the "missing" colors will not be the same. Prints also have less contrast than monitors so that will also not be the same. Same for dynamic range and general "brightness". Adjusting the luminance on your monitor to match prints may be necessary.

With all that said, it is amazing how close you can get, if everything is set up properly.

tvphotog wrote in post #12171149
Chas,

I have found that for my calibrated monitor, using a Kodak ICC code for their paper on my Canon printer, I was able to reproduce the colors on my monitor exactly.

Jay, your print color management thinking is totally backwards. The purpose of a high quality icc printer profile is NOT to make the print match the monitor display but to optimize the output of the specific printer-paper-ink combination. But, the purpose of a well calibrated monitor is to provide a reasonably reliable PREDICTION of how your print output will look.

Right now, when you print a standard test image on a common Epson paper like Premium Lustre, using the icc profile installed with your R3000, do you get a good match between the print and the softproofed display on your monitor? If not, you need to go back and review your entire color managed print workflow, starting from the monitor calibration.

tvphotog wrote in post #12171149
I have found that for my calibrated monitor, using a Kodak ICC code for their paper on my Canon printer, I was able to reproduce the colors on my monitor exactly. I understand that the printer will print the same each and every time, regardless of whether my monitor is calibrated or not.

I will wait and see how the new ICC codes from each paper company work on each of their papers, using my new Epson printer. I assume that they should reproduce what I see on my calibrated monitor. I'll hold off on the ColorMunki til then.

I'm a bit confused about this. If you have a "calibrated monitor," that would indicate to me that you've used some sort of calibrating device in the recent past. If so, you wouldn't also need the ColorMunki... would you?

tvphotog wrote in post #12170374
I've got a new Epson R3000, for which Ilford, Hahnemuhle and Innova will soon have ICC codes for their various papers.

Are these enough to produce accurate renditions of my Spyder 3 Pro-calibrated monitor colors, or is the ColorMunki better at accuracy?

It's an expensive gadget which I would get only if the ICC codes don't do the job.

I'm asking because I found that with my Canon ip5200 Pixma, the ICC codes for various papers were fine at reproducing the monitor image.

When I spend the extra money for Hahnemuhle paper I want my print to be right on the first try. For me that means ICC profiles AND accurate monitor calibration with a calibration device. That paper is too expensive to waste with a bunch of test strips and off prints.

Mavgirl wrote in post #15954319
When I spend the extra money for Hahnemuhle paper I want my print to be right on the first try. For me that means ICC profiles AND accurate monitor calibration with a calibration device. That paper is too expensive to waste with a bunch of test strips and off prints.

You always print with an ICC profile, weather it is the correct one for your printer/ink/paper combination under the lighting conditions expected or a generic profile.

Even the paper supplied profile will generally benefit from a tweak via printer proofing/profiling and this must be done on the paper you want to use, necessitating "waste with a bunch of test strips".

Matt M. wrote in post #15954122
I'm a bit confused about this. If you have a "calibrated monitor," that would indicate to me that you've used some sort of calibrating device in the recent past. If so, you wouldn't also need the ColorMunki... would you?

The Spider 3 Pro is a monitor calibration device, a different device is used to proof & profile printed output.

Mark Vuleta wrote in post #15955545
You always print with an ICC profile, weather it is the correct one for your printer/ink/paper combination under the lighting conditions expected or a generic profile.

Even the paper supplied profile will generally benefit from a tweak via printer proofing/profiling and this must be done on the paper you want to use, necessitating "waste with a bunch of test strips".

I should have been more clear. I mean the correct ICC profiles for the paper and having my monitor calibrated as close to my printer output as I can get it. I'm not saying you won't have to make very minor adjustments or run a couple test strips. With the generic ICC profiles and an uncalibrated monitor you can use several pieces of paper up for test strips before you get it right. With the correct ICC profile and a monitor calibrated to your printer you will waste a lot less trying to get it right. And once you get set up for a specific paper on your printer you should get it right on the first try most of the time after that.

Mark Vuleta wrote in post #15955549
The Spider 3 Pro is a monitor calibration device, a different device is used to proof & profile printed output.

If I have a calibrated monitor (via Spyder, Colormunki, etc), and the correct ICC profiles for the printer and paper, I should be able to print photos that are very, very close to the image that I see on my screen, shouldn't I? What other calibration is necessary?

Matt M. wrote in post #15957205
If I have a calibrated monitor (via Spyder, Colormunki, etc), and the correct ICC profiles for the printer and paper, I should be able to print photos that are very, very close to the image that I see on my screen, shouldn't I? What other calibration is necessary?

I suggest running some small test prints and then soft-proofing your images, comparing them soft-proofing with the actual prints and doing any fine-tuning needed, and saving the resulting adjustments as print-specific presets in Lightroom or actions in Photoshop.